个人、机构和宗教自由

事件回顾

Should our laws aim to protect the religious practices and beliefs of individuals or groups, or both? 这些目的是否彼此矛盾? 是什么支撑着美国的宗教自由? On November 29 the Boisi Center hosted legal scholars 理查德·加内特 and 格雷戈里·卡尔舍尔，S.J. 在一个热闹的宗教自由论坛上讨论这些问题. 加内特, 一位多产的学者和法律评论员, is professor of law and associate dean for faculty research at the University of Notre Dame School of Law. 他首先指出，“宗教自由是一项人权, 以人类尊严为基础, 对人类繁荣至关重要.” The special protection the 宪法 gives to religion is a recognition that 宗教自由 is “part of the very structure of a free society, 这不仅仅是一个宽容的君主做出的勉强让步.” Religious freedom protections aren’t accidents or anachronisms; they are “features, 我们的法律中没有虫子.

加内特说 that 宗教自由 is properly protected in this country by a secular government and its secular laws—not to marginalize religion but rather “to protect 宗教自由 in private, 在公共场合, 在公民社会和政治中.“还, these stout legal protections are insufficient without a robust cultural commitment to 宗教自由. 引用大主教查普特的话, 加内特 said that the 宪法 is “just another elegant scrap of paper unless people keep it alive with their convictions and lived witness,加内特今天说的话受到了威胁.

宗教自由对个人和机构同样重要, 加内特说, and institutions have inherent rights to 宗教自由 that are not merely derivative of individual rights. Indeed, individual and institutional 宗教自由s are complementary, not conflicting. 如果我们把宗教自由减少到行使宗教自由的个人身上, we overlook the institutional contexts that shape individuals in society as well as the communal aspect of religious experience.

太阳城网赌平台法学教授兼艺术副院长 & 格雷戈里·卡尔舍尔，S.J. 给出回应. Kalscheur agreed with 加内特’s account of 宗教自由 as intrinsic to both individuals and institutions, 并强烈支持最高法院最近在Hosanna Tabor的判决, which maintained the rights of religious 社区 to hire and fire (without concern for employment discrimination laws) employees who perform religious functions.

那么，教会不受政府干预的自由的界限是什么呢? 所有人类活动都有其内在的宗教维度, Kalscheur认为, citing Jesuit Michael Buckley’s claim that “There is a religious density to all things.” But this does not mean all church activity should fall outside the realm of regulation. Kalscheur proposed that while “uniquely religious” activities should be exempt from scrutiny, “when the church embodies its religious mission through temporal education and social services activities that are not uniquely religious (though they are inherently religious), they are engaged in activity that the civil authority may have the jurisdiction to regulate.” When religious activity violates public order to a degree that intervention is required, the state should still honor the privileged character of 宗教自由 by interfering in the most minimal way possible, 从而维护尊重和宽容的文化.